## Facts

- Federal immigration law makes a noncitizen inadmissible if “likely at any time to become a public charge.”
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted notice-and-comment rulemaking and issued a final “public charge” rule expanding the benefits and factors DHS could consider in public-charge determinations.
- States, local governments, and nonprofit organizations filed multiple suits nationwide, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Constitution.
- Several federal district courts issued preliminary injunctions restricting enforcement, including orders with nationwide (universal) scope; some were later stayed by courts of appeals.
- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a preliminary injunction barring DHS from applying the rule to anyone, without geographic or party-based limits.
- DHS sought a stay from the Supreme Court pending Second Circuit review and any further Supreme Court proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should stay the Southern District of New York’s nationwide preliminary injunction against DHS’s public charge rule pending appeal and any timely petition for certiorari.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court granted the government’s application for a stay of the Southern District of New York’s October 11, 2019 preliminary injunction.
- The stay remained in effect pending disposition of the government’s appeal in the Second Circuit and, if timely sought, Supreme Court review; it would terminate automatically if certiorari were denied.
- Four Justices would have denied the stay.
- Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred, emphasizing concerns with universal injunctions and their effects on the federal courts and appellate review.

## Legal Principles

- A stay of a preliminary injunction is an interim remedy that does not resolve the merits of the challenged rule.
- Universal injunctions can prevent percolation of legal questions across circuits and push the federal government to seek repeated emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
- Traditional equitable relief is generally expected to be tailored to the parties or injuries before the court; broad injunctions raise Article III and structural concerns.
- In assessing emergency relief, the Court may consider factors commonly associated with stays, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and the public interest in uniform administration of federal law.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed DHS’s public charge rule to take effect by staying a nationwide preliminary injunction pending further review, while a concurrence argued that universal injunctions distort equitable limits and the ordinary course of appellate adjudication.


Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (2020)